Guys, you know, I usually quote fully your replies to answer them... but this time you're telling me too much, and I don't think I've understood your doubts completely...
Anyway, I think your questions against my argumentations are, more or less, these ones...

WHY DO YOU THINK ISLAMIC TERRORISM TO BE AN AGGRESSION, AND NOT A REACTION?
Because Islamic integralists do use terrorism as a weapon, not to declare their self-determination, not to gain peace, not to avoid poverty, not to get respect, - like other rivolutionaries, partisans or "disobedients"- but just to gain power. Their final purpose is not their own peace, nor their own wellbeing, but our total elimination. They won't stop until infidels will be all dead.

Think about Palestine: they could have reached peace and reciprocal respect a thousand times in the last 60 years. But they refused it. They don't want peace. They want the elimination of the State of Israel. The exsistance of the State of Israel is a heavy cultural and intellectual menace to the Islamic social system. (And the one who tells it is a muslim, but I dont remember his name now...)

WAR IN IRAQ IS THE ONLY CAUSE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM. EXCEPT THE USA, ONLY COUNTRIES WHO TOOK PART IN THAT WAR HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.
It is not true. Also Italian and French soldiers and civilians have been attacked, killed, kidnapped in Iraq. Futhermore, they do not attack only political identities, such as armies, supposed spies, nations or administrations, but they fight also our IDEAS, our freedom of thinking what we want or what we wish. Some months ago, nearly a revolution was going on because of some satirical drawings published on a Danish newspaper (Danish! Danish!!!). The drawings were about Muhammad or showed some commonplaces about the Islamic world.

The last fatwas against free western citizens have been made against Pope Benedictus XVI and French journalist Robert Redeker.
The Papacy has always blamed war in Iraq. Anyway, the Pope has been condemned for having quoted a medieval thinker. Will he ask somebody next time he wants to read a book?
Robert Redeker, french journalist and professor, has been blamed for some considerations he made, in an article, about islam. Not against it... Anyway, he can't do it. You can't do it!

That's it. You cannot freely talk about Islam. At least, not when they hear you. They are now gradually suppressing our freedom, in this case, our so-called freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. It's their next step.
Assailing someonelse's liberties is not a reaction to anything. Stating "You can't talk like that, otherwise I kill you" It's an aggression which has nothing to do with any economic or political action, and has no motivation at all, except pure hate.

Last edited by Edoardo on Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:39 am; edited 4 times in total

Guys, you know, I usually quote fully your replies to answer them... but this time you're telling me too much, and I don't think I've understood your doubts completely...
Anyway, I think your questions against my argumentations are, more or less, these ones...

Hi Edoardo, since I was asking you some questions I suppose this is mainly referring to my posting, right? Well, you could ask me what you didn't understand fully and I will try to make it better next time. Sorry if I couldn't make myself clearer than that.

Okay, I'll try again You said something about (I'm quoting freely out of my memory) islamic terrorism has nothing to do with what western countries did to the islamic world in the past, and I'm just wondering why only Europeen countries (England and Spain) had been attacked that supported Bush in the Iraq war?

The text you've quoted sounds very hard and biased to me. I don't know, like it is far away of a solution to try to justify terrorism, it is also very inappropriate to lump the whole islamic world together and to say, you just can't talk with them. The text brings up the example of the satirical drawings in Denmark, but when we talk about this, we shouldn't forget about the protestings of Christian fanatics about the Pop animation show on MTV not long ago!! Sure, no one was burning flags because of that, I'm not trying to justify whatever fanatic acting! It's just my opinion that if something means nothing to me, like religion for example, nevertheless I'm trying to accept other people's point of views.

Quote:

Think about Palestine: they could have reached peace and reciprocal respect a thousand times in the last 60 years. But they refused it. They don't want peace. They want the elimination of the State of Israel. The exsistance of the State of Israel is a heavy cultural and intellectual menace to the Islamic social system.

To talk about Israel and the Palestinians is very delicate and complicated. As for me this is just too simple and biased, again. In the past the Hamas gained more and more acceptence in the Palestinian population as the Hispollah gained more acceptence in the Lebanes population every time the Israeli were attacking them. This is just a fact. In my opinion both sides are very very headstrong, you can't blame the Palestinians without blaming the Israelis. As to blame the Palestians because they don't approve the existence of Israel, I'm wondering why the Palestinians still don't have an official state of their own? The Israelis just do the same by this, don't they?_________________"Who only speaks one language doesn't know his own" Goethe

Last edited by Mirea on Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hate doesn't spawn in a vacuum. And I think sometimes the influence of western countries in the middle east creates an environment for the seeds of discontent to grow.

Yeah... it's all so complicated and there must be a lot of factors, even if we can't understand them. I think it's pretty important not to forget about this, because it's preventing us from blaming too easily just one side._________________"Who only speaks one language doesn't know his own" Goethe

Okay, I'll try again You said something about (I'm quoting freely out of my memory) islamic terrorism has nothing to do with what western countries did to the islamic world in the past, and I'm just wondering why only Europeen countries (England and Spain) had been attacked that supported Bush in the Iraq war?

The list of the countries attacked and/or menaced from terrorism led by integralist Islam in the last ten or twenty years (not three or four) is very long. Most of those countries, such as Morocco, Indonesia or Egypt, are muslim countries. The list of non-muslim countries does not invelve only USA, UK and Spain, but also, even if not in a very eclatant way, France, China, Holland (remember Holland? NO? click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ), Denmark, India, Italy, The Vatican State, Denmark... I think I've already answered to this point. What is not clear?

Mirea wrote:

The text you've quoted sounds very hard and biased to me. I don't know, like it is far away of a solution to try to justify terrorism, it is also very inappropriate to lump the whole islamic world together and to say, you just can't talk with them.

I said there is no possibility to discuss with such fanatics. And now it is not possible even to discuss about their ideas. But I've always talked about the integralist part of the Islamic world... I didn't pack anything "together".

Mirea wrote:

The text brings up the example of the satirical drawings in Denmark, but when we talk about this, we shouldn't forget about the protestings of Christian fanatics about the Pop animation show on MTV not long ago!! Sure, no one was burning flags because of that, I'm not trying to justify whatever fanatic acting! It's just my opinion that if something means nothing to me, like religion for example, nevertheless

That's not the point... Of course Christians do protest when you make satire about the Pope, of course muslim protest when you make satire about Islam. But there are many ways to protest. No embassy was attacked, No one wanted to kill the guy who made the cartoon about the pope, and no MTV dipendent had to give his dimissions.

Mirea wrote:

I'm trying to accept other people's point of views.

No one says you have to!
I don't think to be close minded because I don't even try to accept some fanatic views of religion or life...

Mirea wrote:

Quote:

Think about Palestine: they could have reached peace and reciprocal respect a thousand times in the last 60 years. But they refused it. They don't want peace. They want the elimination of the State of Israel. The exsistance of the State of Israel is a heavy cultural and intellectual menace to the Islamic social system.

To talk about Israel and the Palestinians is very delicate and complicated. As for me this is just too simple and biased, again. In the past the Hamas gained more and more acceptence in the Palestinian population as the Hispollah gained more acceptence in the Lebanes population every time the Israeli were attacking them. This is just a fact. In my opinion both sides are very very headstrong, you can't blame the Palestinians without blaming the Israelis. As to blame the Palestians because they don't approve the existence of Israel, I'm wondering why the Palestinians still don't have an official state of their own? The Israelis just do the same by this, don't they?

The words you quoted, as I said, are a quote of someone who knows very well that situation, but I've just seen him on TV and I don't remember his name now...
Then I've said that Palestinians could have had an official state on their own, (I don't remember when, I think it was at Arafat's times) ...But their administration refused... It means that they have an another aspiration!

The list of the countries attacked and/or menaced from terrorism led by integralist Islam in the last ten or twenty years (not three or four) is very long. Most of those countries, such as Morocco, Indonesia or Egypt, are muslim countries. The list of non-muslim countries does not invelve only USA, UK and Spain, but also, even if not in a very eclatant way, France, China, Holland (remember Holland? NO? click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ), Denmark, India, Italy, The Vatican State, Denmark... I think I've already answered to this point. What is not clear?

Everything is clear, we just do not agree in opinion. I'm aware of the fact that terrorism threatens many many countries in the world, but I just think the causes differ very much in each of those countries. The text you've quoted was lumping them all together. We were talking about the Iraq war and it is my opinion that the causes of the big networked terrorism that was responsible for the attacks in Spain and England had something to do with the support of those countries in the Iraq war.

Quote:

That's not the point... Of course Christians do protest when you make satire about the Pope, of course muslim protest when you make satire about Islam. But there are many ways to protest. No embassy was attacked, No one wanted to kill the guy who made the cartoon about the pope, and no MTV dipendent had to give his dimissions.

Right, in this point we do agree, like I said above I don't want to justify any fanatic act. One reason why I found the quoted text biased was because there was not the slightest hint of understanding in it, why the Islamic world could be offended by such things like those drawings. I know it's hard to understand for most non-religious persons, for me too, but I think it's a question of respect not to do such things when we exactly know, a religion is meaning a lot to other people.

Quote:

I don't think to be close minded because I don't even try to accept some fanatic views of religion or life...

Yes, I'm not doing either, I'm just trying to understand in a differentiated way.

Quote:

The words you quoted, as I said, are a quote of someone who knows very well that situation, but I've just seen him on TV and I don't remember his name now... Then I've said that Palestinians could have had an official state on their own, (I don't remember when, I think it was at Arafat's times) ...But their administration refused... It means that they have an another aspiration!

What other aspiration could they have than to live on their proper ground... I can't imagine. But you're right, Arafat did refuse the suggestion of an official Palestina some 20 years ago (I think..), because he didn't agree with the details. Yeah, very headstrong on both sides._________________"Who only speaks one language doesn't know his own" Goethe

The list of the countries attacked and/or menaced from terrorism led by integralist Islam in the last ten or twenty years (not three or four) is very long. Most of those countries, such as Morocco, Indonesia or Egypt, are muslim countries. The list of non-muslim countries does not invelve only USA, UK and Spain, but also, even if not in a very eclatant way, France, China, Holland (remember Holland? NO? click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ), Denmark, India, Italy, The Vatican State, Denmark... I think I've already answered to this point. What is not clear?

Everything is clear, we just do not agree in opinion. I'm aware of the fact that terrorism threatens many many countries in the world, but I just think the causes differ very much in each of those countries. The text you've quoted was lumping them all together. We were talking about the Iraq war and it is my opinion that the causes of the big networked terrorism that was responsible for the attacks in Spain and England had something to do with the support of those countries in the Iraq war.

The point is that terrorism is not caused by war Iraq, even if England and Spain could have been attempted because of this. And even if western countries retire from Iraq, terrorism will not stop. So... From my point of view, to see a cause of terrorism in the war in Iraq is not correct to understand the whole situation.

Mirea wrote:

Quote:

The words you quoted, as I said, are a quote of someone who knows very well that situation, but I've just seen him on TV and I don't remember his name now... Then I've said that Palestinians could have had an official state on their own, (I don't remember when, I think it was at Arafat's times) ...But their administration refused... It means that they have an another aspiration!

What other aspiration could they have than to live on their proper ground... I can't imagine. But you're right, Arafat did refuse the suggestion of an official Palestina some 20 years ago (I think..), because he didn't agree with the details. Yeah, very headstrong on both sides.

Their aspiration is the ELIMINATION of the state of Israel. That's it.